Sunday, May 31, 2009

When I heard my son yell those words to me, I thought he was pulling my leg.

Hey, after leaving his lacrosse cleats where he did, which led to me stepping on one of them and spraining my ankle...I wasn't going to put it past the kid :-)

Then I walked into the living room and saw the score: Florida State 32, Ohio State 0. The game was in the top of the 5th inning, meaning there was still time for more carnage to be inflicted by the Seminoles' offense.

No, neither my son nor I had been watching the game, so the score was doubly shocking to us. And my immediate reaction was that there was no justification for Florida State to be pounding Ohio State as it was.

The context of the game is this: The two teams are playing for the right to advance in the NCAA baseball playoffs, which operate on a double-elimination system at this point. Ohio State already has one loss; the one it suffers today knocks the team out of the playoffs. Florida State's win ensures it advances to the next round.

There is no question that based on overall record, level of talent and tournament history that the Seminoles are the better team. But do they need to embarrass Ohio State in order to validate that point?

I know none of the players in the game, and I know nothing about the Seminoles' coach, Mike Martin.

The little I know about Ohio State coach Bob Todd comes from the years I lived in Columbus and Athens, and he seems like a genuinely nice man. I don't know him personally, though I believe the sports program I produced when I was at the Ohio News Network had him on as a guest. I wouldn't have conducted the interview.

This disgrace of sportsmanship and professionalism exhibited by Florida State is unacceptable.

As I write this, I'm reminded of a story (for which I believe I have all the details correct...but if something is incomplete or inaccurate, please let me know) involving former Notre Dame head coach Lou Holtz.

His Fighting Irish football team was among the nation's best the year it played a woeful Southern Methodist team. The Irish could have scored 70 or more points that day, but Holtz (to borrow a phrase) called off the dogs. He told his players that if another Notre Dame player scored a touchdown that the entire team would run multiple extra laps in practice during the next week. Going from memory, the score was 45-3 at the time.

Holtz's point was clear -- we've won the game; there is no reason to embarrass an opponent. Yes, the back-ups who were in the game wanted to score a touchdown; the competitive juices ensured that. But Holtz's message was more important -- individual achievements sometimes need to be eliminated.

On that Saturday, Holtz was correct. Today, Florida State's Martin and his team are wrong. Shame on you.

Tomorrow night, the NHL Stanley Cup Finals begin. The two teams -- the Detroit Red Wings and the Pittsburgh Penguins -- each enjoy a rabid fan base in their city and a strong national reputation. But will that translate to television viewers?

Consider this chart, which highlights the U.S. television ratings for the Stanley Cup Finals over the past 13 years. In 2008, the Wings and Penguins met for the Stanley Cup, and it marked the first time in several years that the ratings went up. The intriguing question is whether a repeat of the teams ensure a repeat of the ratings.

There are a couple of reasons to suggest "yes":1. The frustration that hockey fans felt about the lost year of 2005 is over2. The Penguins' Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin are two of the three brightest young stars in the league3. There are two U.S. teams playing for the Cup, and they play in two strong hockey markets4. The ratings throughout the playoffs have been solid

However:1. If there is "Detroit fatigue," then the ratings could drop. The Wings have been one of the best teams in the NHL for many years, and they are a regular Finals participant 2. A short series would be a ratings disaster3. The ratings for hockey continue to dwarf the television numbers for the NBA

Remember, the only time NHL commissioner Gary Bettman wants to hear the word "drop" over the next 7-15 days is when "the puck" comes right after it. In any other context, the news won't be good.

It amazes me that the idea of an invasion is being discussed. I cannot believe the North Korean leadership is irrational enough to consider a declaration of war, no matter what the West does to its ships. (For details about that, review earlier posts on this blog and stories from the mainstream media.)

ORIGINAL POST: You've got to give those North Koreans credit -- they have perfected "not getting it."

A sizable number of Chinese fishing ships pulled back from the waters near North Korea this morning. Though there remains uncertainty as to why, the message was clear -- "we don't think we're safe in this spot right now."

A good summary (and you can find the stories on your favorite mainstream media sites) of what the media are reporting about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, from Politico.com's Martin Kady II --

The criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is picking up steam as senators prepare their return to the Capitol next week after a short break.

Virtually every story in this news cycle focuses on something negative about Sotomayor – her sharp tongue, her comments on race, her involvement in liberal Puerto Rican advocacy group. But the pushback is also under way, as Republicans become more and more wary about their standing with Hispanics if they attack too hard.

It is reasonable to say that unless there is a "skeleton in the closet" Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed by the Senate and become a Justice of the Supreme Court. The Democrats advantage ensures that. But that doesn't mean that a robust discussion about her judicial philosophy can't and shouldn't be had. However, and I reiterate from posts delivered earlier this week -- suggestions that she's "racist" or intolerant have no place in deciding her merits for the Supreme Court.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

I never knew I had become an "older" man. Sure, I might be 41 but when exactly did that become old? And there's no way I'm touching that "younger women" subject. Actually, I am. Considering my wife is "younger" than yours truly, you could say I've already got that covered.

So, Yahoo!...take that offensive advertisement (and the company paying for it) and send it to someone who will fall for it.

The underlying issue in all this (and perhaps I'm seeing this from a naive position) is how do you bring a determined isolationist government into fruitful conversations with the international community?

An uncomfortable question, and one that will be tackled in a major American city this weekYes, the answer is starting to be determined in other cities where the local daily has folded (or been morphed into an online-only publication). But in reality, the ramifications will not be felt for 5-10 years.

1st UPDATE: 7:50 p.m. EDT: Yes, in this brief editorial, Joe Klein of TIME magazine questions Gingrich's motivations. Yet, as you read it, note that he doesn't castigate Gingrich for stating Judge Sotomayor was a racist.

ORIGINAL POST: Am I the only one surprised that there hasn't been more media and public scrutiny of talk show host Rush Limbaugh and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich using the term "racist" to describe Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor?

I'm in favor of a reasonable discussion of what Sotomayor could mean to the Supreme Court and to critical legal issues. And in my opinion the mainstream media and the blogosphere are doing a great job of that. But to label her a "racist" is beyond the pale. So, why the absence of outrage?

From the Democratic/liberal side of the aisle, there are these pearls of political punditry:1. New York senator Charles Schumer says the GOP will challenge the judge, but it will do so at its "own peril."

2. "Radicalbytes" offers this "tweet" -- It's hilarious that old straight white men in the congress are suddenly "concerned" about race an gender bias from Sonia Sotomayor.

3. The National Right to Life Committee suggests "(p)ro-life concerns are reinforced by the knowledge that Judge Sotomayor has been nominated to the Supreme Court by a president who himself criticized the Supreme Court majority for upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion."

4. At least one Libertarian group argues that "on the hot-button issues of affirmative action and Second Amendment rights, her record suggests a decidedly illiberal vision of constitutional law."

5. Finally Newt Gingrich offers this "tweet" -- Imagine a judicial nominee said "my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman" new racism is no better than old racism

UPDATE: For an important "bigger picture" discussion, consider Mike Allen's comments on his Politico.com Playbook:

Veterans of Supreme Court battles will remind you that they often take surprising turns. And Senate Republicans are keeping their options open, with plans to turn over all the stones they can find. (One option being considered is a focus on Second Amendment cases.) But Republicans tell us privately that Judge Sonia Sotomayor was a smart pick that may leave them relatively little to work with. Obama is picking a fight he has already won. She has no abortion opinions, and Bill Frist and Rick Santorum voted to confirm her as a federal appeals judge in 1998. In an overnight appeal to supporters, Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, stopped far short of opposition: 'Contact your two senators today and urge them not to rush to judgment on Sotomayor or approve her based on her biography.'

Republicans recognize that the party has to do better with Hispanic voters if it has any hope of winning a national election, and party officials know that waging holy war against the first Latina nominee to the High Court carries high risk. Worst-case scenario: cementing of stereotypes, and further minority alienation from the GOP. So there'll be lots of posturing and theater and phony outrage. (One veteran tactician explains that both sides use these fights to set markers and send signals for the next pick.) And of course lots of conservative groups are depending on a 'fight' to raise money and jump-start the movement. But barring one of Rummy's unknown unknowns, White House officials expect a relatively painless and swift confirmation, with a bunch of Republican votes. It even looks likely that they'll get it on the president's timetable. Although Senate Republicans are not yet committing to a confirmation before the August congressional recess, our high-level soundings found little appetite for dragging out what looks like a foregone conclusion. As conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt told us: 'I don't believe in charging up a hill when you're going to be completely mowed down.'

Well before I sprained my ankle, I committed to helping out at "Field Day" at my son's school. So most of today (unless the weather goes south or my ankle turns in a direction it shouldn't!!!) I will be supervising activities.

Look for my blog to fire up later today, unless the weather goes south or...uh, no that one is too painful to repeat :-(

Now, the temptation to dive into the mud and muck in which talk show host Rush Limbaugh apparently lives is great, but instead of offering obnoxious comments about what he must be I'm going to let his words do that for me.

I end this post with this thought: Would you have the guts (or be ignorant enough, you decide) to call your boss, a colleague, someone you know or anyone else for that matter "a reverse racist?" If you did, what do you think would happen to you?

My wife and I are babysitting a friend's daughter for a couple of weeks. Today, we took our younger son and Lily to the local pizza shop for lunch.

The precocious little girl dropped these gems on me:1. "My mom and dad couldn't decide whether to name me Lily or jewelry.""Do you mean Julie?" I asked her."Yeah, that's what I meant. Julie"

2. Many of you know I sprained my ankle on Friday. "Gosh, I really hope you don't sprain the other ankle," Lily said to me. "Me, too," I said."Yeah, that would really hurt."

3. "My mom and dad are going to let me go swimming when we get home," Lily told me."I don't know," I said. "It's raining and kind of cold for the swimming pool today.""That's okay," she responds. "As long as it's not thunder and lighting. Then I'm the tallest thing in the water.""The tallest thing?" my wife asked."Yeah, if I'm the tallest thing in the water, then I need to get out."

7th UPDATE: 3:45 p.m. EDT: Hmmm, Justice Sotomayor "brings to the confirmation experience the kind of rich personal story that has always been deeply gratifying to Americans, the journey from humble beginnings to a respected position of great influence."

I'll let you decide if this piece from The New York Times (from which the above quote is taken) is objective journalism or another example of that liberal bias that critics suggest is evident everywhere in mainstream media coverage. Keep in mind that Judge Sotomayor is from New York, ensuring a kind of "hometown girl makes good" theme to many stories from the New York media.

Now before you go overboard on that, keep in mind that theme is seen almost every day. It's especially evident in sports stories, though I'm not equating the importance of sports events to nominations to the Supreme Court. But I am saying that "boosterism" is part and parcel of media coverage when it comes to stories about local people or teams that "make good."

Is that wise? Is it ever justified? Remember, if you suggest "boosterism" is never appropriate (a standard to which I subscribe), then I ask you this -- what did you call that media coverage in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 and the commencement of the 2nd Iraq War in 2003?

Of course, if you want to argue shades of gray regarding "boosterism," then you are opening a Pandora's box. Because then, one person's "boosterism" is another person's "bias."

And away we go.

6th UPDATE: 3:29 p.m. EDT: Do yourself a favor and ignore the "rbs" (rhetorical b*** s***) that is passing for "substantive analysis" of President Obama's decision to nominate Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Instead take time to find reasonable voices representing the many political philosophies in this country. One such thought-provoking argument is made by a strong conservative -- Gary Bauer.

5th UPDATE: 11:30 a.m. EDT: In what can be interpreted as a "hey, I'm going to run for president in 2012," former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has offered a rebuke of the president's nomination. His statement here was taken from TIME magazine:

The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bi-partisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the "Extreme Court" that could mark a major shift. The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the "feelings" of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice.

4th UPDATE: 11:25 a.m. EDT:Here are Judge Sotomayor's remarks after being nominated by President Obama.

I think the most important line is this one: "I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government." That can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and I anticipate the screamers on the right will have a field day with it.

2nd UPDATE: 9:07 a.m. EDT: In advance of the announcement, Sen. Pat Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has been working with his Republican rivals to smooth out the process for the hearings. This excerpt was taken from Martin Kady II's "The Huddle" on Politico.com:John Stanton reports in Roll Call: 'With the Senate preparing for the first Supreme Court confirmation of the Obama era, Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is already trying to smooth the process, making peace offerings to ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and urging colleagues to avoid a partisan war. Since Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement last month, Leahy has held lengthy discussions with President Barack Obama on the process for moving the nomination and has held a number of talks with Sessions to set the basic ground rules for the hearing.'

And, yes, in case you are wondering: North Korea has been blown right off the media's radar because of the impending Supreme Court announcement. Wonder what "Dear Leader" thinks of that? You know he knows.

1st UPDATE: 9:05 a.m. EDT: An interesting "tweet" tidbit from CBS News White House reporter Mark Knoller about Judge Sotomayor:As a child, Sotomayor was a fan of Nancy Drew and wanted to be a detective, but was ultimately inspired to the law by Perry Mason.

If Judge Sotomayor is approved by the Senate, then she'll become the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. And at 54, she would stand a realistic chance of being on the Supreme Court for at least two decades.

Here is a short bio of Judge Sotomayor, from C-SPAN:AP is reporting that Appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor (2nd Dist. Court) is to be named to succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor was born in the Bronx, NY, graduated from Princeton and Northwestern Univ. She would be the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court if her nomination were approved.

In an overt case of bombast, KCNA, the state-run media agency, added this: "Our army and people are fully ready for battle." (The quote was on TIME magazine's home page this morning, under its "Quotes of the Day" section.)

Consider Iran and North Korea, the two countries determined to bolster their nuclear capabilities. Though he is no diplomat, the president of Iran is at least meeting with other world leaders and attempting to engage the international community. (Don't misunderstand me, I'm not endorsing what he has done; I'm merely saying he is at least not isolating himself.) Compare Mr. Ahmedinajad to "Dear Leader." It's likely he's suffered a stroke in the past year. He's shown no interest in meeting world leaders. He's offered no indication he wants to place his country in the international community.

ORIGINAL POST: There have been a variety of reports and notes about North Korea already today, so as I look at the stories being disseminated (or at least being posted to the Web) tonight I thought it wise to start a new thread on the topic.

Arizona senator John McCain, one of this country's most astute international observers, has added his voice to the list of those critical of North Korea. He says it is important that China influence Pyongyang to act responsibly. That would seem to be wishful thinking, unfortunately when you recognize that the North Korean government appears unwilling to listen to any reasonable ideas about its nuclear program.

North Korea and Iran appear determined to one-up the other in attempts to draw the ire of the international community. But that raises a more important question: is a destabilized East Asia more or less important than a destabilized Middle East? Of course, the answer is that in neither place can the international community afford to have perceived or real "nuke nations." I'll be curious to see what comes out of the U.N.'s emergency meeting later today about the North Korea situation. In part that's because it almost certainly will face the same series of discussions a year or so from now with Iran.

Interesting report in the New York Times that notes Greta Van Susteren could find herself on the rocks at FOX. The professional relationship her husband has had with the family of Alaska governor Sarah Palin is considered in this report as one of the issues weighing down Ms. Van Susteren.

A potential replacement, according to the story, is Megyn Kelly, who is the current co-host of "America's Newsroom" on FOX. I don't think she owns any professional clothes that reach below her kneecaps. Watch her on FOX in the morning; you'll see a lot of her legs. (For what it's worth, if one of my students wanted to go on the air showing that much leg...uh, nope.)

6th UPDATE: 6:30 p.m. EDT: The U.N. Security Council has aggressively condemned North Korea. But there still is the question of what sanction or idea will bring North Korea into compliance with the U.N. and as a respected member of the international community.

When it comes to the former idea, the ideas seem limited. When it comes to the latter, the possibilities seem nil.

5th UPDATE: 4:20 p.m. EDT: What does Pyongyang want? It seems a relevant question as governments and other defense/military experts analyze why North Korea conducted a nuclear test late last night (EDT).

But perhaps the more relevant (and maybe ominous) question is this: What does Pyongyang intend to do with its nuclear capabilities? The Associated Press looks at those possibilities in this report. At the same time, the New York Times notes there could be indications of how North Korea will conduct foreign policy after "Dear Leader" is no longer in that role.

span style="font-weight:bold;">4th UPDATE: 10:42 a.m. EDT: Comments from President Obama: World "must take action." North Korea is deepening its "international isolation." Strong words from Mr. Obama, but the larger question is what the U.S., other foreign governments and the U.N. will actually do about it.

3rd UPDATE: 10:09 a.m. EDT: And there is this also from Mike Allen:

The WashPost final edition (M2) has a bylined Blaine Harden story out of Tokyo with North Korea confirming the test. But, perhaps because of holiday deadlines, the paper didn't remake the front page and stuffed the story at the bottom of A16, with a tiny A1 refer. The N.Y. Times remade A1 to lead with a full story under the 1-col. hed, 'North Korea Says It Tested Nuclear Device: Defies U.N.'s Warnings – South Korea Calls for Emergency Meeting to Address Crisis.'

The New York Times made the proper editorial judgment, while someone at the Washington Post has some explaining to do.

'The latest test will confound the international community, which has for years tried a mixture of huge aid pledges and tough economic sanctions to persuade the impoverished North to give up efforts to build a nuclear arsenal. It is also bound to raise concerns about proliferation, a major worry of the United States, which has in the past accused Pyongyang of trying to sell its nuclear know-how to states such as Syria. Analysts said the test will also serve to raise North Korea's leverage in any negotiations with the United States. It comes as speculation has mounted that leader Kim Jong-il, his health uncertain after reports of a stroke last year, wants to strengthen an already iron grip on power so he can better secure the succession for one of his three sons.'

One thing to consider as you follow this story: Because today is a national holiday, a story such as this will rapidly move up the media's coverage plans. With the federal government closed, almost all businesses also closed and attention focused on the holiday activities, a story such as this will get more play than it might under typical conditions.

The international community must now discuss how to respond to the "belligerence" or the "sovereignty." Additional economic sanctions seem inevitable, and those will be "spun" in North Korea in an intense propaganda campaign. A military response? Forget about it. It's what's in between the economic and the military that will be worth watching.

Listening/watching/reading these Republicans reminds me that while the Democrats are leading the country (and you can insert whatever opinion you want about their decisions), the Republicans are still arguing petty, partisan politics that does nothing for their image or the country.

ORIGINAL POST: No, he's not made an official announcement, but once you read this story (and I'm looking for others to supplement this post) I think you'll agree there is no other conclusion to draw.

But here is the problem Ridge is facing -- the most vocal within the GOP have indicated his brand of politics is not what they want the party's standard-bearer to have. Ridge is a moderate, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

The Republicans -- at least some of them -- are going to blame the president for any new terror attack against the U.S. Here's an excerpt of Toobin's New Yorker piece, which appeared in Mike Allen's Politico.com "Playbook":

'The speech was, as politicians say, a marker-a warning to the new Administration. ... Cheney's all but explicit message was that the blame for any new attack against American people or interests would be laid not on the terrorists, or on the worldwide climate of anti-Americanism created by the Bush-Cheney Administration, but on Barack Obama. For many months after the 9/11 attacks, Democrats refrained from engaging in the blame game with the Bush Administration. Cheney's speech makes it clear that, should terrorists strike again, Republicans may not respond in kind. Cheney's political acumen is not to be underestimated, notwithstanding his image problems. ... The President gave a persuasive speech last week, but it proved only that he has a lot more persuading to do.'

So, let me see if I understand this correctly: It was inappropriate, the GOP said, for anyone to criticize the Bush administration for 9-11 and how it handled the war on terror, but Dick Cheney now says the Obama administration is fair game for any future domestic terror attack.

There is a one-day conference planned in Washington this week that is attracting some heavy hitters from the newspaper world. Note that the conference also is open to the public, and that the registration fee is not onerous.

If you are in the nation's capital, or can get there, this conference is something you ought to consider. And regardless of where you can make it, you ought to re-examine some of those myths about the newspaper world.

Why is it Cheney who is delivering this message? Is he the only one among the former top Bush administration officials who really believes it? Is he simply continuing his snarly dog act that so seemed to dominate his time in the White House? Is he placing himself in the hierarchy (if not at the top) of the current GOP leadership discussion?

I maintain, as I have in other posts, that until the GOP determines a solid message and a set of messengers to deliver it, it will be hamstrung by people like Cheney. They are going to use the leadership and message vacuum to their benefit, regardless of how the public reacts to it.

On one of the Sunday talk shows, Colin Powell is going to be interviewed. I suspect he will be asked (cajoled, prodded) to respond to the recent diatribe Mr. Cheney offered up about Mr. Powell. If we watch, we'll see how Mr. Powell responds; if we don't, we can count on the media to offer an interpretation and analysis of the interview.

A former professional colleague who remains a friend said the other day that he couldn't understand why the media were so interested in what Dick Cheney was saying. He wondered why it was that the former vice president continued to be a news maker while others who had preceded him in that office have all but disappeared from the public eye. (Consider Dan Quayle, as an example. Would you recognize him if he walked past you today?)

Yes, Mr. Cheney is benefiting from a GOP that lacks a leader and a cogent message. He's going to continue to beat the drum about how well he believes his former boss fought the war on terror, and he'll keep beating it until someone else pushes him off the stage.

Come on, of course it is because the government is afraid that in the lead up to next month's elections that the reform candidate will use it for his benefit and therefore to the detriment of the current leadership.

I am concerned that adoption of this idea will stifle a student's academic exploration -- in order to complete a program in this amount of time, the diversity of general education offerings and/or the number of hours needed to complete the bachelor's degree will be cut. Neither is a winner for students.

Friday, May 22, 2009

You can look at this decision in at least two ways:1. Liberty is a private/religious university, and therefore it can sanction whatever groups it wants2. Liberty is demonstrating a myopic view of what is free speech.

I'm inclined to say the latter. I am the product of a Catholic high school, and I did my undergraduate work at a private university. I could not imagine either denying it students relevant expressions of their beliefs.

A few days ago, we completed a baseball game in our backyard. Nicky was the permanent batter, and in this game the Braves beat the Pirates, 22-21. The low-light of the game was one pitch I threw. It hit Nick in the head.

No, nothing serious, but he's reminded me from time to time of it.

Today (and before I had my ankle mishap, which had nothing to do with playing baseball), we were practicing. One inadvertent bad pitch caught him in the fingers as he swung the bat.

Now, as we sit in the living room (me with an aircast wrapped around my ankle; he with a glass of water in his hand) Nick decides its time to give me a piece of his mind.

"First, you murdered me in the head. Then you murdered me in the fingers. Where else can you murder me?" he said, staring right at me.

And just to finish his harrumph: "You are a bad pitcher."

If he keeps this up, just wait until I'm ready to pitch again. Hehehehehe.

The detention center in Cuba has become one of the most powerful symbols of the Bush administration. To some, it represents an image of America's failure to follow international law. For others, it reflects an appropriate place to keep individuals perceived to be the most dangerous people in the world.

I'll let you decide which argument has more merit.

Looking to the future -- in which one question must be answered: Does GITMO stay open? -- consider this:

Victoria McGrane reports in today's POLITICO: 'If President Barack Obama is going to turn the page on Guantanamo, he may need help from two of his old rivals: John McCain and his sidekick, Lindsey Graham. While Senate Republicans have shown a united front on Guantanamo, the Arizonan and the South Carolinian are among a handful of GOP senators poised to break away from their party if the White House offers an appealing plan for dealing with the detainees and closing the prison.'

'McCain, who has always spoken out against torture, believes that keeping the facility open hurts America's standing abroad, and Graham, a military justice expert, is also working with the White House on Guantanamo proposals.'

ORIGINAL POST: One day after opening the doors to the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, the military junta that runs Burma changed its mind and slammed them shut.

The U.N. is about to get involved in this situation. Good luck. If the leadership of the nation turned its back for a long time on international assistance in the wake of last year's monsoon, then what makes anyone think it's going to listen now?

The discussion about Iran's nuclear ambitions would seem to start (and perhaps stop) at this point -- what right does a sovereign nation have to bolster its military capabilities in order to repel real and potential threats?

But as you consider that, then also consider this: It is completely illogical to suggest that either the U.S. or Israel would launch an aggressive attack on Iran, as a means of starting/escalating the tension in the Middle East.

So, where does that leave the conversation among Tel Aviv, Washington and Tehran?

Our 5-year-old was determined to try his new backpack (that he'll take to school with him when he starts kindergarten in the fall), so today he takes it out the door with him because my wife and I were running a couple of errands.

Mind you, those errands were dropping off something at a friend's house, making a quick stop at the post office and another at the bank. We then were going to lunch.

"We're not going to be long at any of those stops, kiddo," I told my 5-year-old. "Are you sure you want to take that backpack?" (Yes, he had stuffed it with a book or two, two or three crayons and a stuffed animal.)

"But, dad, what happens when I get bored waiting for my food?" he asked.

Suu Kyi stands accused of violating terms of her house arrest after an American citizen visited her home.

In a separate issue relating to fair trials, The New York Times notes this morning that groups that advocate for overturning wrongful convictions are worried that cuts in newsroom jobs could affect their work. Why? Many of those journalists did investigative pieces that could lead to exonerating those who didn't commit crimes.

span style="font-weight:bold;">1st UPDATE: 7:35 p.m. EDT: The GOP offered another example of its apparent strategy -- call Democrats the "s" word. It's a shame to see one of America's two-major parties reduced to this.

I understand the need to rally the troops, but Mr. Steele comes off as more interested in attacking the White House than in coming up with a concrete series of proposals and policy items to counter the Democrats' agenda. His message of focusing on the future in the context of attack suggests the GOP has no new ideas to bring to the American people. That's a shame.

Is Iran being an aggressor by launching that missile? It's easy to argue "yes," but the larger issue is what right does a country have to protect itself? Do I think the Iranian action has a potential aggressive component to it? Absolutely. And that's the problem Iran has created for itself -- even if the missile is designed solely for defensive purposes, the actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran over the past 30 years suggests that it is hard to take what it says at face value.

I've periodically mentioned on this blog that I think the pooling of local television news operations' resources is going to be one of the trends in future news coverage.

There is simply no need for three television stations (in a hypothetical three-station market) to each cover the same event, and this ineffectual placement of critical personnel is highlighted by the on-going cuts to newsroom staffing.

An article in TVNewsDay offers an in-depth analysis of this pooling trend, and it also indicates that it is happening in medium and large markets.

In the mythical good ol' days when budgets were fat and newsrooms were teeming with people, a sense of proprietary ownership of everything existed. Under such an arrangement, the competition was given nothing; if it failed to cover a story that was its problem. Those days are gone.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

What is happening in Frisco, Texas, is sure to have repercussions in that school district but also in many others across the country. There, the district has been hamstrung in its attempts to keep the Gideons from proselytizing near its schools.

But the larger question is what does it all mean? One possibility -- if Mr. Medvedev was supposed to be a token president and fill the seat for four years until Mr. Putin returned to it, then something has changed in the president's mind. Perhaps he's more independent thinking? Perhaps the former president was moving Russia in the wrong direction and the current president intends to fix it?

You'll recall yesterday I noted what words President Obama used (and didn't use) and what language Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu used (and didn't use) as they discussed with the media the details of their meetings at the White House.

Mr. Seib's editorial is another relevant example of how you should listen to what people say because the message being delivered often comes from words that are not stated.

I was flipping around the TV dial a few minutes after 11:00 last night while "tweeting" and blogging. (Yes, I know all about the woes of multi-tasking.) I saw a "tweet" from Dan Shelley, a great guy who works at CBS in New York.

He had just seen someone on PBS' American Experience program highlighting the Kennedy family who had jogged his memory. I flipped to the show. Not five minutes later I hear the pitter-patter of 5-year-old feet coming down the hallway. The younger of my two children was no longer asleep.

He walked over to me, grabbed my glass of ice tea and took a healthy sip. He then climbed into my lap and joined me in watching the show. And he stayed right there for the next 45 minutes.

Yes, sometimes the memories of being a dad come from big events, but at other times they come from the simple moments. And last night was one of them.

By the way, he wants to watch the Buffalo Bill show when it airs. (I'd better remember...or else!)

Monday, May 18, 2009

Here is the transcript of the remarks offered by President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu, who met today.

A few things that I caught (and these comments are deliberately brief; I recognize the absence of context or explanation in every case.):

1. The president mentioned Iran before he discussed a Palestinian homeland. I don't think this was an accident. On one level, it reinforces the American and Israeli political position that Iran's nuclear ambitions are the preeminent threat to any lasting peace in the Middle East. On another, it tells the Iranian government that if it is sincere about being a member of the international community, then it needs to rethink its plans for a nuclear weapon.

2. The president went to great lengths to indicate while there has been no timetable established for Iran to step forward and make clear its plans, Iran will not be given forever to do that. But the president never offered an indication of what the sanctions might be if Iran refuses to go along with American and Israeli wishes. Underscoring that is the question of whether the U.S. would use its military against Iran. There was nothing said today to indicate it would, and that compels Israel to determine whether it would go-it-alone in any military operation. We can presume the military issue was discussed in the meetings between the president and the prime minister, but the key point here is what was said on-the-record (for lack of a better term). But the president's suggestion that 30 years of distrust between the Americans and the Iranians cannot be wiped out in just a few months provided an important hint that diplomatic, not military efforts, would be the hallmark of the current U.S. administration.

3. The president used the words "two-state solution" and thus reaffirmed the U.S. position that there should be a Palestinian state in the Middle East. However, Mr. Netanhayu never used those words. He carefully noted that the Israelis want a long-term and stable peace with the Palestinians, and that his country does not want to govern the Palestinian people. Therefore, he never officially endorsed the two-state concept.

4. Mr. Netanhayu also sought to ease any concerns Israelis might have about the president's diplomatic agenda in the Middle East. As he began his remarks, he complimented the president, saying: "I was particularly pleased in your reaffirmation of the special relationship between Israel and the United States. We share the same goal and we face the same threats."

Be sure to check out a variety of media reports over the next few hours (and of course various print outlets tonight and tomorrow) for more complete analysis.

You should note as you read the aforementioned story that the conference where Dr. Chan made her remarks was cut short so that the attendees could return to their home countries and monitor the spread of the flu.

And that is a valid point: I'm sure you've noticed over the past couple of weeks that your worries about catching H1N1 have eased. Sure, more people have contracted H1N1 since the media frenzy ebbed, but that doesn't mean that you are in danger. Be cautious, yes. But don't run out to your local pharmacy and buy every surgical mask you can find.

Interesting report by the Associated Press (and picked up in this case by the Washington Post) noting that journalist Roxana Saberi, recently released from an Iranian prison, is not ready to talk about her ordeal.

History has recorded the powerful relationships various prime ministers and U.S. presidents have had. Perhaps none in recent memory was more important than Britain's Margaret Thatcher and America's Ronald Reagan.

Typically, when these government leaders are of a same mind, results follow. But that doesn't mean opposite minds automatically mean little of substance will result.

The trial of human rights advocate Aung San Suu Kyi begins in just a few hours. It was just three days ago that she was arrested for violating the terms of her house arrest after an American citizen purportedly entered her home.

The trial is not expected to be quick, but considering the military junta's reaction to last year's monsoon there is only one verdict you can expect. What happens to the American is almost equally certain.

I'm also attempting to track down the full text of Judge John Noonan's speech. He delivered the Laetare address. The 2009 Laetare honoree, Mary Ann Glendon, refused to accept the honor and to speak to the graduating class as a means of protesting the decision to invite President Obama to campus. Judge Noonan was the Laetare recipient a few years ago.

4:24 p.m. EDT:In regard to whether President Obama should have received an honorary degree, I offer this thought: The problem I have with the discussion about the honorary degree is that it presumes every person who earns it believes every Catholic tenet espoused by Notre Dame. I doubt the university's leadership asks each potential degree candidate to verify his/her support for Catholic teaching. If such a litmus test is not asked of other people, then how can we know the president is the first individual who doesn't (for lack of a better word) deserve it?

4:17 p.m. EDT: Time. That is what it will take to come to centrist positions that the president says he wants the country to move toward. (And, of course, that statement is made believing that the president indeed wants that to happen.) What he's done at this point is to overturn at least two positions that could easily be called "reactionary." (That label is used in response to those critics who say the president has endorsed a "radical" view of social policies.) However, it is the use of those labels that derail the conversation society needs to have about abortion, stem cell research, etc.

3:40 p.m. EDT: Immediate reactions:1. The president made a powerful case for why dialogue is the best way to address differences that divide social issues2. Powerful and persuasive arguments being made about why the president should not have been invited to the campus continue to deserve to be heard in the mainstream media coverage3. The few protesters who attempted to disrupt the commencement address should be recognized for exercising their freedom of speech; any tendency to want to ostracize them would be a mistake4. The attention during the commencement ceremony deserves to be focused on what is taking place in the ACC. However, the people protesting on and around the Notre Dame campus should not be ignored in media coverage. Sure, there will a preference (for lack of a better term) to highlight what the president said, but the potent message being offered outside is equally newsworthy

3:39 p.m. EDT: The bald-headed man behind the president is a Secret Service agent. That explains why he is not applauding.

3:34 p.m. EDT: Obama: "When people set aside their differences...all things are possible."

3:32 p.m. EDT: Obama: "If there is one law we can all agree upon...it is, of course, the Golden Rule -- the call to treat one another as we would wish to be treated."

3:30 p.m. EDT: Obama challenges the graduates to "restore" the economic vitality of the country without forgetting the social good. "Hold firm to your faith...and remember too that...His wisdom is greater than our own."

3:26 p.m. EDT: He offers a stunning commendation to the graduating class for its maturity in how it has handled the controversy surrounding his visit. This receives a loud applause.

3:24 p.m. EDT: Obama: "No matter how much we want to fudge it...some of the views of the two sides are irreconcilable."

3:23 p.m. EDT: As president speaks of abortion, am I hearing a baby crying in the audience? He calls for a reduction in abortions and unintended pregnancies, for an increase in adoptions, and for more social services for women who do deliver babies.

3:16 p.m. EDT: Obama: "Even bringing together people of good will...can be difficult." Uses stem cell research to highlight how the a person of faith and a parent of an ill child can agree on the importance of saving life. "How do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort?"

3:15 p.m. EDT: CNN showing a protester; he appears to be in the top deck of the ACC. It also appears he quietly left the arena when police/secret service approached him. Knoller (via "tweet"): He was yelling "stop killing our children."

3:13 p.m. EDT: The second of two protesters who attempted to shout down the president yelled "abortion is murder," according to CBS News reporter Mark Knoller (via a "tweet")

3:11 p.m. EDT: 1st protester attempts to shout down the president. Student body shouts "We Are ND." Note that by using the Notre Dame TV feed, there were no cutaway shots (at least not on CNN).

3:02 p.m. EDT: Rev. Jenkins: "President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him."

2:59 p.m. EDT: Rev. Jenkins: "We will listen to all views...and we can be a primary and privileged place...As we all know, a great deal of attention has surrounded President Obama's visit to Notre Dame...Most of the debate has centered on Notre Dame's decision....less attention has been focused on the president's decision to accept." (Applause follows.)

2:58 p.m. EDT: Rev. Jenkins comments on faith, forgiveness and understanding is classic Catholic commentary (and one that I fully endorse as a Catholic), and it offers a stunningly clear justification for why President Obama was invited.

2:57 p.m. EDT: Rev. Jenkins: "As we serve the Church we can persuade people by both faith and reason."

2:53 p.m. EDT: Rev. John Jenkins speaking. He is he president of the university. Did you notice he mentioned President Obama first in the names of people he mentioned as he began his short remarks? Rev. Jenkins: "The world today is torn by division...differences must be acknowledged and in some cases cherished."

2:49 p.m. EDT: Perhaps 3 minutes until the president speaks. (Oops...forgot about the university president's remarks and introduction of Mr. Obama.)

2:46 p.m. EDT: Miles Brand is one of the 8 recipients. Brand is the sometimes controversial academic figure who has insisted that university athletic programs become more in line with the academic missions of those schools. I don't always agree with his policies, but I do admire his stance. Dr. Brand is very ill and is not there. It is possible this will be the last significant award he receives in his lifetime. I hope the issues he has raised remain important in the academic community.

2:43 p.m. EDT: The president speaks after all 8 honorary degree recipients get their recognition. Why is the president flipping through the commencement program instead of paying more attention to what is happening around him?

2:40 p.m. EDT: Multiple honorary degrees are being handed out. Mr. Obama to be first. Loud applause has the president receives his degree.

2:35 p.m. EDT: Valedictorian: "Let's notice the people too frequently ignored and have a conversation with them."

2:30 p.m. EDT: CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield attempting to advance an agenda -- anyone opposed to Notre Dame's invitation is out of touch. I don't think she's actually used those words, but you can hear it in her questions. I don't care where you fall on this debate, but for a journalist to do this is inappropriate. That's not her job.

2:28 p.m. EDT: Valedictorian Brennan Bollman begins by acknowledging the president is there. You can read anything you want into that, though going from memory I read a story she was in favor of the president's invitation to campus.

2:27 p.m. EDT: Standing ovation for the valedictorian. She's an impressive young lady.

2:21 p.m. EDT: Ridiculous to see CNN and FOX interrupting their live coverage with analysis of what is happening. That can be done after the fact.

2:19 p.m. EDT: Nothing about the Obama visit to Notre Dame was said in the Mass I attended this morning. In fact, the highlight of the Mass was 4 young people who made their First Holy Communion.

2:17 p.m. EDT: Note that about half of the commencement party behind him is NOT applauding.

2:16 p.m. EDT: Wild applause for the president as he enters the ACC.

2:13 p.m. EDT: President should be entering the Joyce ACC very soon.

2:12 p.m. EDT: See how many people have a yellow cross and yellow baby's feet on their mortarboards. These are the students offering a silent protest. CNN reports they are urged to not applaud, stand for any standing ovation or otherwise indicate an endorsement of Mr. Obama's appearance there today.

2:05 p.m. EDT: Moment of humor: My 10-year-old watches the administration and faculty marching in to commencement. He asks me: "They look old to be graduates. Why are they coming in?"

I tried to explain who and what they are. I'm not sure he's convinced they belong there. (I didn't have the guts to ask him what he thought about me attending the Point Park graduation each year as a member of the faculty!)

2:03 p.m. EDT: CNN reports president will not ignore controversy surrounding his visit; his speech is still embargoed so reporters cannot quote extensively from it.

2:02 p.m. EDT: I can't help but think the graduation ceremony has been subsumed by the president being there. That's a shame.

1:59 p.m. EDT: Olympic Fanfare as administration, faculty and others enter the Joyce ACC. Quite a contrast from the "From All the Saints"

1:56 p.m. EDT: Student being interviewed on FOX News. She says commencement address goes too far in fostering the dialogue that university should be having about abortion, stem-cell research, etc.

1:53 p.m. EDT: Music playing now I know as "For All the Saints" from Sunday Masses.

1:50 p.m. EDT: Live video of graduates' procession available on CNN.com.

1:45 p.m. EDT: Knoller offers an updated "tweet:Graduating students have just entered the arena. some wearing mortarboards with models on top of Washington Monument et al. Fun.

1:35 p.m. EDT: Found this -- a Notre Dame theologian supports the university's invitation and awarding of an honorary degree to President Obama. Also found this: Republican National Committee head Michael Steele says Notre Dame should not have invited the president. Mr. Steele offers nothing new to the conversation.

1:30 p.m. EDT: Media coverage today to this point appears to be in "let's just remind you of what has happened so far" mode. That should begin changing momentarily.

Readers of this blog know I really enjoy implosion video. And the latest comes from Pittsburgh, where an apartment complex was brought down this morning.

What makes this video equally important to me is that one of my recent students put together the story. Justin LaBar graduated in May, and he's doing some multimedia work for one of the city's local newspapers.